Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. The arguments against keeping weren't properly addressed/corrected and as a result it seems that the community consensus (excluding the blatant sockpuppets) feels that the article does not meet our inclusion guidelines (especially those regarding notability and sourcing). Rjd0060 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Gin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No significant coverage in secondary sources means that this fails WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to promote the brand/product. Author claims that mocrodistilleries are about to become notable, but the doesn't mean that this one is notable, nor is wikipedia a crystal ball. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are 3 newspaper articles about to be published (one now published) about this new Sacred Gin microdistillery phenomenon. Namely in The Hampstead and Highgate Express, The Evening Standard, and The Camden New Journal. Please do not nominate this article for deletion yet. thanks. UPDATE: There is now significant coverage justifying NOTABILITY -  The gin has more than half page coverage on page 3 in the well renowned local paper in the microdistillery's catchment area.  "Ian's gin is just the tonic for Highgate" Hampstead and Highgate Express 14th May 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki (talk • contribs)  — Inhwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I can't in good conscience say otherwise when three articles are about to be published on account of WP:CRYSTAL.  This is great and all, but still.  That, and this sounds more like a promotional article to begin with, aside from the notability issues.  On top of that, the article is all over the map - explains briefly the gin, and then goes into recipes to be used, amongst other things.  If it's to stay, it needs to be notable, and needs a rewrite as well.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 13:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment These observations are no longer the case. There has obviously been a lot of rewriting of the article going on to address these issues, and there is now also verified notability.
 * (ec) Delete I believe this is the first article I've ever seen in which not a single one of the references and external links even mentions the article's topic. There are zero relevant Google Web, News, or Books hits for either the name of the product or the name of its supposed manufacturer. Complete failure of WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment These 2 points are now verifiably untrue.
 * Delete without prejudice. This consumer product may, some day, have independent reviews in edited publications, and as such may qualify for an article.  At the present I cannot find any.  But I think I need to change my religious faith to one where gin is properly revered. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This point is no longer relevant, given notability has now been established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This consumer product is part of a phenomenon which is of significant interest to distillers and consumers of distilled products worldwide.  The author should be given the benefit of the doubt for the time being.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)  — 90.193.10.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If, as your post on the talk page of this discussion seems to indicate, you are User:Inhwiki, please strike out the boldfaced "Keep" in the preceding comment. A user gets to express only one such boldfaced opinion in an AfD discussion. Deor (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and struck out the "keep" above, as it's obvious that Inhwiki and 90.193.10.67 are the same person. Deor (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. There is no benefit of any doubt here as the complete lack of sourcing leaves no doubt on notability much less verifiability.  Note that the company's purported website is a coming soon page. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not any more it's not coming soon. Nicely layed out site. Unfortunately for the creator of the article, that still doesn't make it notable.... -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.sacredgin.com and the 'About us' page on that site. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article pre-dates the website content. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yet another example of TrulyBlue's biased and extreme commentary. - Speedy delete on unfair and unsafe grounds? - this is nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - "First microdistillery of its kind in Britain to stock local pubs" - Ham&High 14th May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is now significant coverage justifying NOTABILITY - The gin has more than half page coverage on page 3 in the well renowned local paper in the microdistillery's catchment area.  "Ian's gin is just the tonic for Highgate" Hampstead and Highgate Express 14th May 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment What is it with TrulyBlue? Why is this generating such an unbalanced level of comments from one person? Surely TrulyBlue's comments are out of proportion, and inappropriately dismissive? there is entry after entry after entry from TrulyBlue. Does he/she have an undeclared interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have just been drinking Sacred Gin in G&T form in my Highgate pub. I was interested to try it after reading about it in the Ham and High and was pleased to discover more about it in Wikipedia, which is what I thought Wikipedia was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smhiac (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 May 2009 — Smhiac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Per WP:AN/I Smhiac's !vote has been struck.

Comment You must be looking at another user - there is no legal threat here.
 * Comment The above comment was posted by an account making their first ever edit to Wikipedia. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What is it with you guys trying to delete this? Haven't you got real contributions? This is something real that is happening, that you are trying to snuff out - but for what reason? I'm sure you are not really the trolls you seem to be. Can you give it a rest please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I assume your comment is making a sideways accusation of sockpuppetting. However, you will find this is not the case.  There are now 800 hits per day on the Sacred Gin wikipedia entry, and a lot of people are getting useful information from it, notwithstanding TrulyBlue's attempt to delete. Why is it getting 800 hits per day? BECAUSE IT IS NOTABLE AND IMPORTANT!
 * Comment Sky Attacker - do you have association with TrulyBlue? It seems as if you are associated given the speed of your response.  If so would you please observe Wikipedia's rules on identification and conflict of interest.  If not - please explain your sudden interest in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have just been informed that the reason that the "Sacred Gin" Wikipedia article is generating so much interest is because one of the detractors above is directly associated with a rival gin.  This is extremely dishonest and very much against the principles of Wikipedia.  I really think this is intolerable.  I note that there is a certain rival Gin with a blue bottle as its trademark... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk)
 * Rather unlikely and in any case, it's still not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Duplicate !vote struck through. Deor (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have studied Wikipedia's definitions of "Notable", and I beg to differ. This article IS NOW NOTABLE on the basis of reliable secondary sources.  Also - Madison Avenue advertising agencies will have a dedicated staff devoted to annihilating competition.  Don't be naive.  Important sources of information such as Wikipedia are patrolled by big corporations.  This is certainly an example of that.  There is no other justification for this AfD behavior - look at the Bombay Sapphire Wikipedia entry! - Strangely, there is no challenge to that Wikipedia entry!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Why knock one product unless you have a motive. I look forward to trying an exciting new gin and this one sounds extremely interesting. Don't kill a good idea until it has been fully tested and tasted! Keep this entry, you have my vote!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SHowley (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)  — SHowley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment above vote struck through as the user has been banned for being a sockpuppet of User:Inhwiki.TrulyBlue (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please identify yourself TrulyBlue. My lawyers need your address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.10.67 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Frankly at this stage of the proceedings I am interested in the anti-trust element of the unjustified deletion perspectives being voiced here. Please note that my lawyers are noting the Ip addresses of these unjustified detractors. You had better be sure that you have absolutely no contact with the brand name in question, or I will be subpoening your ISPs for your details. And for the record, I mean this to be relevant to comments which are obviously biased.  It is morally wrong to act in a concerted way to detract from a competitor. Does anyone think it is OK for big brands to throw their weight around?


 * Comment I have struck through the above vote as another duplicate. This is getting ridiculous.  A glance at my edit history shows that I'm a reasonably long-standing editor with no previous contributions relating to gin.  For the record, I have made no contributions to this debate, or relating to Sacred Gin, other than those made (and signed) under my username.  I have no association with User:Sky Attacker.  I have no associations with rival distillers, distributors of promoters of gin-like products. I don't even drink the stuff. It seems to me that User:Inhwiki's name is consistent with an association with Ian Hunt of Sacred Gin and that the user may well have a significant conflict of interest, and that the various contributions from IPs 90.193.10.* are closely associated with that user, but that's just a view.  This AfD should be about the merits or otherwise of having a wiki on Sacred Gin, so let's be civil and keep it to the facts and policies. Thanks, TrulyBlue (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - User:90.193.10.67 has been blocked for 1 year for legal threats per this thread on ANI. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. While I can accept on good faith that there may be articles on the subject of this article in the pipeline, until they're actually published we won't know how credible and substantial they are.  The sources already in the article that are from reliable sources (such as the Guardian one), do not appear to cover this distillery in detail, or at all in some cases.  If this business becomes successful and the drink becomes notable, then the article should of course be recreated.  But they're not there just yet.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment Please note that the main article that represents NOTABILITY is in the Hampstead and Highate Express, not the Guardian.  It is not available online yet, but is available as the print edition.  There is usually a delay between print and online versions, simply due to staffing issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As a local resident to London and a drinks trade employer in Highgate, I find it particularly notable that during a distressed economic climate local enthusiasts and entrepreneurs are turning to innovation in this way. It is win for them, win for me and win for our clinets who come from all over the world. It is good for everybody and interesting to hear about and quite frankly sets a good example for people who would otherwise waste too much time trying to prevent the world from dealing with a shared problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.31.0 (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well I have decided to check the veracity of the existence of the claimed page 3 article, in the Hampstead and Highgate Express - and it is indeed present. It is a half page written by a regular and well known reporter Tan Parsons.  I would suggest that notability has been achieved already therefore, and that perhaps anyone who says otherwise should take the trouble to obtain the article in print form, pending it's appearance online.  I must say it was a very interesting read, and highly relevant to local people who are suffering from the economic downturn like everyone else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)  — RegencyPost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment RegencyPost was created a few minutes before posting on this AfD, and to date has made no contributions other than the three on this AfD. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the drinks trade employer above and I have discussed the interest in Sacred Gin with my clients this lunchtime and discussed with them the surprising level of negative feedback that its entry on Wikipedia is attracting from just one or two contributors. We all understand that Wikipedia should not be used as a marketing platform - I would not advetrtise my establishments on Wikipedia. But I and my clients believe it is notable that a new drink is appearing in the market place from this type pf activity. It is not just the drink that is notable, but the way in which it has come to market. While microdistilleries are commonplace in USA, eg. California, they are not in UK. I also believe it is not common for microdistilleries to produce gin. So we all agreed it was notable, and we all had a drink to celebrate the fact! We all hoped that many others around the world would follow suit and take the initiative to set something up themselves, rather than just fall in line behind the heavy hitting conglomerates that dominate the commercial world and quite frankly distort it so badly that we end up where we all are today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.31.0 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have struck out your Keep edit - Only one vote please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 May 2009


 * Comment. If anyone wants to look at the press coverage referred to above, it can be seen here (click on "Next" to get to page 3). One article in a local paper still doesn't seem to me enough to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, so my opinion is unchanged. Deor (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Very interesting to see the article like that. It seems to me that in fact it does therefore meet the requirements of WP:GNG, and should certainly be given more time, as there is obviously a lot happening.  Notability would seem to be established, as this meets the requirements quite clearly. It is not about what seems sufficient to you, it is about Wikipedia's rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Come back when you have multiple articles in national newspapers. Not notable. (The number of sockpuppets on this page is alarming, believe me, you are fooling nobody) Theresa Knott | token threats 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Multiple articles in national newspapers is not the required standard for notability under Wikipedia's rules. The rules are less stringent, and the article does in fact meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Please check them.  Also your allegation of sockpuppetting is unfounded and untrue.  There are 800 hits per day on the article from interested independent parties in the wine and spirits trade, and it is an article of interest in its own right now.  I would also suggest that it is good for Wikipedia to generate such interest in the alcoholic bevarage trade, as it has not been a medium that these people have used much before.  So it probably has a beneficial effect on Wikipedia.  Think carefully before you act in a negative way - there are unintended consequences and collateral damage.
 * Delete: No reliable sources, and I agree with Theresa that the number of sockpuppets is astounding. --  Darth Mike (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Your allegation is unfounded and untrue.  Please would you explain why you think there is sockpuppetting going on?  There is a community of interested, but unlinked users who are supporting the keeping of this article because it is genuinely notable.  There is also obviously a community of users who are trying to get it deleted and are sadly resorting to making unfounded allegations.  Please check your facts before making these assertions.  Your lack of research is shown by your "No reliable sources" comment, and the "Sockpuppetting" allegation is unfair, and false.


 * Note to closing admin – and  have been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of . MuZemike 21:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You really must run a checkuser before making these untrue allegations.
 * Comment - Sorry to disagree, but just because external individuals support the article does not qualify them as sockpuppets.  Your allegation is unfounded and untrue.  Please would you explain why you think there is sockpuppetting going on?  I will be contacting these users to start the process of appeal.  You are just simply wrong.  There are 800 hits per day on the article from interested independent parties in the wine and spirits trade, and it is an article of interest in its own right now.  I would also suggest that it is good for Wikipedia to generate such interest in the alcoholic bevarage trade, as it has not been a medium that these people have used much before.  So it probably has a beneficial effect on Wikipedia.  Think carefully before you act in a negative way - there are unintended consequences and collateral damage.

"Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors." The real issue here would seem to be notability as a policy related point, not accusations of bias from either side. Blocking users is crude and unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 10:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I thought it would be useful to mention this Wikipedia rule, for those unacquainted with it -

Please also take a look at this link before blocking new contributors on the basis of unchecked allegations. You will put people off contributing, and damage Wikipedia's accessibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegencyPost (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_bite_the_newcomers

I tried this gin recently at a drinks convention. I would put it in the same category as Bombay. Good herby aftertaste, quality spirit. Can't see anything wrong about including it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritdrinker (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)  — Spiritdrinker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep


 * Seriously you are fooling no one. The socking is very foolish as it merely makes you look disruptive. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment above vote struck through as User:Spiritdrinker has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Inhwiki. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another note to closing admin – and  have both been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of the above. MuZemike 21:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment True in the case of RegencyPost only, and only because you unfairly blocked me. Please check your facts before arbitrarily dispensing summary justice.


 * Delete Notability, we need it. Inline references, we need them. COI, we avoid it. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Stuart - could you explain what COI is? Surely notability has been established to the required standard now?


 * Comment An unsigned comment above asks what COI is. COI is Conflict_of_interest. And no, I do NOT believe notability has been established. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I know for a fact that the other users are NOT my sockpuppets, I absolutely challenge you to prove otherwise - this is a SUBSTANTIAL cause for complaint. Will someone please call a sysops to verify that this is true? My previous Inhwiki has been blocked WITHOUT an investigation. This is very unfair, and I am surprised that you can get away with it. For the record - I am not Ian Hunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki2 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello again, I am Inhwiki (and Inhwiki2). I am not using sockpuppets MuzeMike. They are people in the drinks industry who have an opinion, and are entitled to express their opinion.  By blocking them you are violating wikipedia policy.  I note you have also been deleting AfD pages without appropriate authority.   A note to Theresa Knott - why do you insist on making unfounded accusations - there is a clear procedure for examining claims of sockpuppetting.  The only other user name I have used is RegencyPost, and that was in response to MuZemike unfairly banning my username.  I will strike out the "Keep" post that RegencyPost made as penance.


 * Comment I would also point out that this article is drawing around 800 page views per day, and that is 10 times what the article on Bombay Sapphire draws.  That makes the product NOTABLE in itself, and should probably be cause for a change in Wikipedia notability criteria.  It is also GOOD for Wikipedia to be reaching the drinks industry, parts of which which have been very slow to use new technology.  Yes - I know that Wikipedia is not "new technology" to us, but the drinks industry can be very old fashioned...


 * Comment user:Inhwiki2 (created to get round ban on User:Inhwiki) struck though multiple 'delete' votes for no given reason. I have tried to restore the status to a reasonable approximation of the thoughts of unbanned users,and apologise if I've got some of them wrong.  I pity the poor closing admin who has to wade through this....  TrulyBlue (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that if other users see fit to strike through "Keep" comments that are based on untrue perspectives, or indeed negligent heavyhandedness, it is appropriate to act similarly to "Delete" comments, particularly those which are based on verifiably untrue, or out of date reasons. Thanks for yet more helpful and polarising comment TrulyBlue. You obviously have become personally aggravated, and I would ask that you moderate your actions. I am being treated unfairly, and it is acceptable to try to put the record straight, particularly when subjected to this treatment. You are making no attempt to put things right, it is clearly a partisan issue you are following — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki2 (talk • contribs) This comment was made by Inhwiki2, then removed by Deor (I assume accidentally) in the process of reverting changes to other peoples' bolded !votes. I am restoring it. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Have I misunderstood? I thought that a struck through comment in an AfD page indicated that the author of the comment had decided to retract it. Is it acceptable for a third party to strike through comments? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't a constructive way to go about things, however, most admins don't just run through and count the "keep" and "delete" comments. I've read this entire discussion with absolutely no regard to what has been struck and what hasn't and will close it momentarily. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.